Application of Metamaterial Wall for Mutual Coupling Mitigation of a Dual Differential Fed 2×2 Patch Array Antenna
Bibliographic record
Abstract
An effective technique for mutual coupling mitigation in a$2\times 2$dual differential fed patch antenna array (DDFPAA) is presented. Metamaterial walls are placed between the radiating elements of an array in the two orthogonal planes of the antenna to reduce mutual coupling in both planes. The wall comprises a double-layer array of split ring resonators (SRR) to suppress coupling through space wave effects. The radiating elements are microstrip patches that are differentially fed to achieve polarization diversity. The impact of interelement mutual coupling on functionalities, mechanism, and mode of operation of the array antenna are discussed in conjunction with the SRR metamaterial wall. A composite antenna array is implemented and computationally validated with an overall footprint of$1.24\lambda \times 1.24\lambda $at the resonant frequency of 9.37 GHz. A fabricated array prototype with a patch edge-to-edge distance of$0.18\lambda $has a measured mutual coupling reduction of more than 15 dB and 5 dB in E- and H-planes, respectively, within the operating frequency band. The proposed antenna has a measured 10dB impedance bandwidth of 9.27–9.45 GHz, a broadside measured peak gain of 11.4 dBi, and multiple polarizations of CP and/or LP.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".